Friday, April 27, 2012

“Annealing the Library” did not
contain any statements about abandoning paper books (or journals).
Each library needs to assess the value of paper for its community.
This value assessment is different from one library to the next and
from one collection to the next.

The main point of the post is that the
end of paper acquisitions should NOT be the beginning of digital
licenses. E-lending is not an adequate substitute for paper-based lending.
E-lending is not a long-term investment.
Libraries will not remain relevant institutions by being middlemen in
digital-lending operations.

I neglected to concede the point that
licensing digital content could be a temporary bandaid during the
transition from paper to digital.

-

In the case of academic libraries, the
bandaid of site licensing scholarly journals is long past its due expiration date. It is time to phase out of the system.

If the University of California and
California State University jointly announced a cancellation of all
site licenses over the next three to five years, the impact would be
felt immediately. The combination of the UC and Cal State systems is
so big that publishers would need to take immediate and drastic
actions. Some closed-access publishers would convert to open access.
Others would start pricing their products appropriate for the
individual-subscription market. Some publishers might not survive.
Start-up companies would find a market primed to accept innovative
models.

Unfortunately, most universities are
too small to have this kind of immediate impact. This means that some
coordinated action is necessary. This is not a boycott. There are no demands to be met. It is
the creation of a new market for open-access information. It is
entirely up to the publishers themselves how to decide how to respond. There
is no need for negotiations. All it takes is the gradual cancellation
of all site licenses at a critical mass of institutions.

If libraries cut off subsidies to
pay-walled information, some information will be out of reach. By phasing in the proposed changes gradually,
temporary disruption of access to some resources will be minimal.
After the new policies take full effect, they will create many new
beneficiaries, open up many existing information resources, and
create new open resources.

Tuesday, April 17, 2012

The path of least resistance and least trouble is a mental rut already made. It requires troublesome work to undertake the alternation of old beliefs.John Dewey

What if a public library could fund a blogger of urban architecture to cover in detail all proceedings of the city planning department? What if it could fund a local historian to write an open-access history of the town? What if school libraries could fund teachers to develop open-access courseware? What if libraries could buy the digital rights of copyrighted works and set them free? What if the funds were available right now?

Unfortunately, by not making decisions, libraries everywhere merely continue to do what they have always done, but digitally. The switch from paper-based to digital lending is well under way. Most academic libraries already converted to digital lending for virtually all scholarly journals. Scores of digital-lending services are expanding digital lending to books, music, movies, and other materials. These services let libraries pretend that they are running a digital library, and they can do so without disrupting existing business processes. Publishers and content distributors keep their piece of the library pie. The libraries' customers obtain legal free access to quality content. The path of least resistance feels good and buries the cost of lost opportunity under blissful ignorance.

The value propositions of paper-based and digital lending are fundamentally different. A paper-based library builds permanent infrastructure: collections, buildings, and catalogs are assets that continue to pay dividends far into the future. In contrast, resources spent on digital lending are pure overhead. This includes staff time spent on negotiating licenses, development and maintenance of authentication systems, OpenURL, proxy, and web servers, and the software development to give a unified interface to disparate systems of content distributors. (Some expenses are hidden in higher fees for the Integrated Library System.) These expenses do not build permanent infrastructure and merely increase the cost of every transaction.

Do libraries add value to the process? If so, do libraries add value in excess of their overhead costs? In fact, library-mediated lending is more cumbersome and expensive than direct-to-consumer lending, because content distributors must incorporate library business processes in their lending systems. If the only real value of the library's meddling is to subsidize the transactions, why not give the money to users directly? These are the tough questions that deserve an answer.

Libraries cannot remain relevant institutions by being meaningless middlemen who serve no purpose. Libraries around the world are working on many exciting digital projects. These include digitization projects and the development of open archives for all kinds of content. Check out this example. Unfortunately, projects like these will be underfunded or cannot grow to scale as long as libraries remain preoccupied with digital lending.

Libraries need a different vision for their digital future, one that focuses on building digital infrastructure. We must preserve traditional library values, not traditional library institutions, processes, and services. The core of any vision must be long-term preservation of and universal open access to important information. Yet, we also recognize that some information is a commercial commodity, governed by economic markets. Libraries have never covered all information needs of everyone. Yet, independent libraries serving their respective communities and working together have established a great track record of filling global information needs. This decentralized model is worth preserving.

Some information, like most popular music and movies, is obviously commercial and should be governed by copyright, licenses, and prices established by the free market. Other information, like many government records, belongs either in the public domain or should be governed by an open license (Creative Commons, for example). Most information falls somewhere in between, with passionate advocates on both sides of the argument for every segment of the information market. Therefore, let us decentralize the issue and give every creator a real choice.

The traditional commercial model will remain available, of course. Some authors may not find sponsors. Others may produce works of such potential commercial value that open access is not a realistic option. These authors are free to sell their work with any copyright restrictions deemed necessary. They are free to charge what the market will bear. However, they should not be able to double-dip. There is no need to subsidize closed-access works when open access is funded at the level proposed here. Libraries may refer customers to closed-access works, but they should not subsidize access. Over time, the cumulative effect of committing every library budget to open access would create a world-changing true public digital library.

About Me

Eric is a technology consultant specializing in the strategic application of new technologies in academic computing and library services.

Prior to this, Eric was the Director of Library Information Technology, a Senior Research Associate and Lecturer in Applied Mathematics at the California Institute of Technology. Eric holds a computer science degree from the K. U. Leuven (Belgium) and a Ph. D. in Mathematics from the Courant Institute, New York University, NY. He is the author of papers in scientific computing, library technology, and the graduate textbook "Concurrent Scientific Computing", published by Springer-Verlag.

He chaired the OpenURL standardization committee, which developed the OpenURL ANSI standard. He is on the Board of Directors of the Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations (NDLTD).